Pinnacle's latest safety idea..

[redflyer65]

The company is pushing hard to have all pilots fly both models (per a TA). Is that safety or savings?

A jump from the -200 to the -700 maybe. From the -200 to the -900 is not that great of an idea in my opinion...

What a great time for the company to propose such an idea. Great job.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Safety isn't an issue. I go between the 757 and 767.... that's a bit more of a difference with a 150,000 pound weight difference, different handing characteristics and a very different sight picture. The differences between the 200 and 900 are minimal...


The issue is that they are trying to cheapen the operation and con the pilots out of more money by only paying 200 rates except when they fly the 900. That's what I would be pissed about. It requires less reserves in the system and cuts pay back to the 200 rates for all the ATL based rsvs except when they get a 900 flight.


I believe some FUPM bracelets should be in order for the 9e guys!

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Safety isn't an issue. I go between the 757 and 767.... that's a bit more of a difference with a 150,000 pound weight difference, different handing characteristics and a very different sight picture. The differences between the 200 and 900 are minimal...


The issue is that they are trying to cheapen the operation and con the pilots out of more money by only paying 200 rates except when they fly the 900. That's what I would be pissed about. It requires less reserves in the system and cuts pay back to the 200 rates for all the ATL based rsvs except when they get a 900 flight.


I believe some FUPM bracelets should be in order for the 9e guys!

Bingo! Just ask the PSA guys what they think. For that matter just ask ANY group with a blended FO payscale what they think. I'll start as a witness to the blended FO.... IT'S B.S. DON'T EVER LET IT IN THE DOOR!

 

[redflyer65]

I think the issues comes in if you are to fly the -200 for 11 months then are given a -900 turn, or

Fly the -900 for 12 months then your thrown into a -200 sim for a jeopardy PNCL checkride without a warm up.

You guys alright with that as well?

I don't think a constant back and forth would be a major issue, but they want carte blanche to do whatever they need.

 

[CoATP]

Safety isn't an issue. I go between the 757 and 767

Just curious does one approach nose up and one nose down. If you use landing technique in one does it crashthe other? Do you have a 500 hr FO that you have to manage? Are you one?

 

[PA31Driver]

Just curious does one approach nose up and one nose down. If you use landing technique in one does it crashthe other? Do you have a 500 hr FO that you have to manage? Are you one?

Haha awesome! :laugh:

 

[redflyer65]

Easy guys, Peanuckle is an OK dude but CoATP understands where I'm headed.

At Delta, if your on 767 lines - doesn't pretty much stay that way?

The -900 is unbelievably longer than the -200 and has slats where the -200 doesn't. How would this work out at 200 and 1/2? Not sure I'd really want my family to find out. Maybe that's just me....

 

[CFI2766]

The company is pushing hard to have all pilots fly both models (per a TA). Is that safety or savings?

A jump from the -200 to the -700 maybe. From the -200 to the -900 is not that great of an idea in my opinion...

What a great time for the company to propose such an idea. Great job.

I think that SKYW already does this.

I think that this will be an issue for all the regionals when the next round of contract talks come around.

If the company wants this, I'd suggest that we take it: as long as ALL rates are bumped up to the 900 rate.

 

[redflyer65]

That would be a great idea if you could get it, but is it still the safest thing to do?

Especially after the Colgan crash. Really?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Yes, they land very different with distinctly different sight pictures and techniques. If you try to land the 767 like you land the 757 you will at the least end up with some logbook writeups. Also, if you haul back on the stick on takeoff on the 767 like you do on the 75, you'll drag the tail.

I get one leg in the 767 about every 2-3 months. It's becoming even more few and far between, unfortunately. I don't consider swtching back and forth that hard- they are the same airplane above 10,000 feet for the most part. Just have to remember which one you are flying before you takeoff and before you land.

As far as 500 hr FOs, I was always very comfortable with myself as an instructor- in fact they were fairly easy to manage because you knew you had to watch them and were typically eager to learn. There were certain exceptions and definitely certain captains I wouldn't have wanted combined with them with my family in the back.



With Pinnacle's training program (lack thereof) and their neverending run to save pennies, I'd be fighting this tooth and nail like they are. If people are going to be dual qual'd, pay everyone 900 rates all the time. I'm paid 767 rates however much or little I actually fly the fatty.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

That would be a great idea if you could get it, but is it still the safest thing to do?

Especially after the Colgan crash. Really?

Exactly... you'd think that PT and CS would be tip-toeing around trying to make a good impression on the media, and then they go and pull crap like this. Un-freaking-believable.

 

[Volasl]

PSA does it everyday. When i was there i flew the 200 all the time. When i flew the 700 it was always down to mins with a stiff crosswind at night. Its not a perfect situation but the FAA says its safe right?

 

[brokeflyer]

u guys needs to step up and make safety your number one goal before more people get killed.

 

[DoinTime]

Yes, they land very different with distinctly different sight pictures and techniques. If you try to land the 767 like you land the 757 you will at the least end up with some logbook writeups.

If you land the -900 like the -200 you won't have to deal with a log book write up because the aircraft will be flaming wreckage and your passengers will be hauled off in body bags.

I'm not saying that it can't be done but this is Pinnacle we are talking about here. We don't have the pilot group or corporate culture to do this safely. What's the corporate motto again? Never compromise $avings?

 

[filejw]

The actual flying of the a/c should not be a problem, we used to fly the DC 9 -10 thru -50 with out a problem. You should be able to handle the a/c if you have any skill level at all. However how are the FMC's set up, close to same ? This would be an issue to be looked into..

 

[IBNAV8R]

DON'T DO IT!!! In my opinion, it's NOT safe. 700/900 OK. Add -200, no way. You can get away with it in good conditions but they land quite differently - enough to bite you (and the other 52 people on board) when conditions go south. We've had at least one -200 overrun where the crew who had been flying the -700 expected different braking performance after a long float (also common in the -200 if you're not used to it). Company was mum, of course, but word got out.

 

[paddlehigh]

I do it at PSA all the time. Its totally safe if you know how to fly planes to begin with.

 

[brokeflyer]

I do it at PSA all the time. Its totally safe if you know how to fly planes to begin with.

well yeah, but it's pinnacle we're talking about here.

 

[flyboyike]

The differences between the 200 and 900 are minimal...

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there...yeah.

 

[redflyer65]

You guys do a 200 to 900? There is no 700.

 

[viper548]

I fly all 3 models all the time. It's not a big deal if you fly the different models on a regular basis, but after several months in the -200 and going to the -900 the first few landings are gonna be rough, really rough if you land it like the -200.

 

[gearupflapsup]

well yeah, but it's pinnacle we're talking about here.

Remember the Pinnacle Motto.

"NEVER COMPROMISE SAVINGS"

I think its on a big plaque in the Detroit Base Manager's Office....

 

[Smarta$$]

Are 900's operate out of ATL. Most of us in the other 3 hubs will be dual qualified in both, but never or almost never operate a 900. Then we go to MEM to do a jeopardy PC and the 200 sims are full. Have to take it in the 900 sim when you have not operated a 900 flight in 11 months, or whatever. Oh, and by the way your record and job are on the line. No think you. If we had a 50-50 or 60-40 split fleet through all hubs, maybe. But our 900's make up about 12% of our fleet.

 

[paddlehigh]

If you can't handle it well then go work at McDonalds. They all land the same in the sim anyways and if you don't have basic airmanship on the line to realize what aircraft you are in to land it appropriately, well do yourself and your passengers a favor a find a new career.

 

[Speedtape]

If you can't handle it well then go work at McDonalds. They all land the same in the sim anyways and if you don't have basic airmanship on the line to realize what aircraft you are in to land it appropriately, well do yourself and your passengers a favor a find a new career.

I bet you are fun to fly with. You sound like a real John Wayne type! Or better yet, a MGMT stool.

It is safer, over an entire pilot group, to not fly the 200 and 900. I know you have "Special Skills," but not everyone is a legend in their own mind!

Can it be done? It is done on paper. Is it a safer practice than not combining the flying, yes, it is safer to keep it separate. There have been enough documented accidents and incidents with this issue to support the argument.

 

[paddlehigh]

Why don't you cry some more that will help you on your next check ride

 

[TurboAWD]

You guys that really that think this is a great idea have an interesting attitude twords flight safety.

Even the (likely) more experienced pilots at FedEx seem to have a problem being dual qualified on the MD11/MD10, but you think that 250 hrs wonders with 2500 hr Captains should be flying 900's for months at a time and then go into a 200 and fly a CAT II to a snow covered short runway at night, or a gusty x-wind to a wet short runway in heavy rain.

Good idea.

Turbo

 

[wilde737]

SKYW flies all the variants, the 200/700/900. It's really not that hard, albeit there are some differences. It just takes some thought. I wouldn't say it's unsafe, except for the ego when you've been flying the 200 and end up in the 700. SMACK!

 

[PCL_128]

If you can't handle it well then go work at McDonalds.

Gee, there's a great attitude about safety.

Safety should be the number one priority, and jumping back and forth between the -200 and -900 is not the safest way to operate by any stretch of the imagination. Hold their feet to the fire and force them to keep separate categories.

 

[Speedtape]

The 757 and 767 cockpits and deck angles were designed from the beginning of development to have similar perspective and the least amount of differences to obtain the Common type.

The Crj 700 had too many differences noted right up to the time of certification to gain same type status. There were nearly 200 differences from what I remember. Somehow, (wink and nod), they were supposedly reduced to about 149 (not sure of the exact number) and gained certification to a lot of people's skeptcism and surprise, just under the wire of the minimum amount of differences as set for by the certification rules.

One airline I know, decided to keep it safe and keep it separate. Their FAA office was in agreement and also would not permit them to operate both aircraft. Shortly thereafter, a European crew, who was flying both, cracked up a plane on landing due to dissimilar landing perspectives in a morning landing that had some visability restrictions due to fog.

The 200 has so many ADs and Operation Bulletins out, it would be extremely difficult to fly both and keep things straight--especially with tired crews.

It's all about saving bucks. Put everybody on the lower pay scale for most pay events, and then give a paltry premium when a pilot gets to fly. For a company that is currently flying the aircraft separately, it would be a pay cut for the people on the 700, and an occasional pay increase for those who do not and usually cannot hold it. In other words, concessionary, but not shared by all. It amounts to Industrial Cannibalism.